• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shocker: Trump and Barr refuse to defend ban on female genital mutilation

ludin said:
I guess you didn't read either. drugs are sold across state lines therefore they fall under federal crimes.
this does not which means it is a state issue not a federal one as the judge ruled.

you should really pay attention and stop the false equivalency fallacies they don't help you.
Click to expand...

Hey a constitutional amendment was required for prohibition :p
 
bomberfox said:
Yes congress can protect the bodily autonomy of people, especially when it comes to something as inherently harmful as FGM. I dont give a *** whatever sky daddy one believes in, bodily autonomy takes precedence. Its not really up to just one judge now is it? circumcision, as much as i detest the practice, is not as inherently harmful as FGM so there is enough wiggle roomfor religions to get by.
Click to expand...

Passing a law does nothing if no adequate mechanism exists to enforce it - see federal immigration law.
 
So is the issue that people think the administration should defend a law regardless of constitutionality? Or do people who oppose what the administration is doing (or not doing) believe the federal law is constitutional as written?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Passing a law does nothing if no adequate mechanism exists to enforce it - see federal immigration law.
Click to expand...

We are talking about a law congress passed. Keep up.
 
Moon said:
So is the issue that people think the administration should defend a law regardless of constitutionality? Or do people who oppose what the administration is doing (or not doing) believe the federal law is constitutional as written?
Click to expand...

I think an argument can be made on the law’s constitutionality.
 
Moon said:
What is that argument?
Click to expand...

The first argument could be that scotus ruling on the enforcement of farm quotas (limits on how much can be grown for even personal consumption) during the new deal era has stretched interpretation wide enough to include this. I personally wouldnt favor it but the argument can be made. My main contention is those claiming that banning genital mutilation is some sort of affront to religious freedom which is silly.
 
bomberfox said:
The first argument could be that scotus ruling on the enforcement of farm quotas (limits on how much can be grown for even personal consumption) during the new deal era has stretched interpretation wide enough to include this. I personally wouldnt favor it but the argument can be made. My main contention is those claiming that banning genital mutilation is some sort of affront to religious freedom which is silly.
Click to expand...

A lawyer CAN argue anything, but that would be very weak. You could make a case for crop production being tied to interstate commerce of crops. Not so much for specific acts of violence on individuals.
 
ludin said:
actually in this case this procedure is considered massive assault on a woman.
the medical community as a whole condemn this.

were as circumcision has benefits for guys this does not. in fact it has a lot of detrimental affects on women.
Click to expand...

As the court pointed out, this act, like assault, falls under state jourisdiction. The didn't say there was a problem with having a law... just that that specific law, at the federal level, is not constitutional.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm not defending the procedure. It is a religious practice, however, and tat is a matter for states, not the federal government.

Consider the laws regarding murder: The only laws on the Federal Books regarding murder are for murders committed within an area where the Federal Government has jurisdiction, each state has its own laws regarding murder. This is no different. The nature of this crime is in the jurisdiction of the states... unless it is happening in a region where the Federal Government has sole jurisdiction.

People are out of their skulls on this and can't see reason. The STATES have responsibility for laws like this, not the federal government. I think their SHOULD be laws against FGM, but they need to be passed by the states, not the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

i agree on the last part 100%.
 
bomberfox said:
Yes congress can protect the bodily autonomy of people, especially when it comes to something as inherently harmful as FGM. I dont give a *** whatever sky daddy one believes in, bodily autonomy takes precedence. Its not really up to just one judge now is it? circumcision, as much as i detest the practice, is not as inherently harmful as FGM so there is enough wiggle roomfor religions to get by.
Click to expand...

but it is a state issue not a federal government one. read the ruling.
it isn't that hard to understand.
 
bomberfox said:
The first argument could be that scotus ruling on the enforcement of farm quotas (limits on how much can be grown for even personal consumption) during the new deal era has stretched interpretation wide enough to include this. I personally wouldnt favor it but the argument can be made. My main contention is those claiming that banning genital mutilation is some sort of affront to religious freedom which is silly.
Click to expand...

I don’t see that absent any interstate activity how the New Deal interpretation could apply, but sure, someone could make that argument.

I don’t see how this is anything other than a state issue, and making that statement doesn’t mean that one is in favor of FGM.
 
dcsports said:
As the court pointed out, this act, like assault, falls under state jourisdiction. The didn't say there was a problem with having a law... just that that specific law, at the federal level, is not constitutional.
Click to expand...

i was speaking on more of a medical point of view vs law enforcement. the procedure is brutal.
it causes massive issues with women that have it done and has serious serious medical and mental
side affects as they grow older.

i agree this is a state issue not a federal one.
 
Though to me framing this as an interstate commerce argument misconstrues what is essentially a human rights violation.
 
ludin said:
but it is a state issue not a federal government one. read the ruling.
it isn't that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

As per the ruling yes, though perhaps i got too emotional (i usually do when this is involved. hey left wing destroyed). I think framing it as an interstate commerce issue is more dubious. Granting the framing of the ruling, he is correct but the framing is where i should have made an objection.
 
Moon said:
I don’t see that absent any interstate activity how the New Deal interpretation could apply, but sure, someone could make that argument.

I don’t see how this is anything other than a state issue, and making that statement doesn’t mean that one is in favor of FGM.
Click to expand...

The ruling involved regulation on personal consumption if i recall correctly even though it did not affect interstate commerce. I saw it a long time ago so ill see if i can dig it up again. Sure, you are correct about the last part.
 
ludin said:
but it is a state issue not a federal government one. read the ruling.
it isn't that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

The problem is that very few states have adequate laws against FGM. In the absence of state action on this, the Feds have to act. There's absolutely NO excuse for allowing this procedure to be performed in our borders.

By way of analogy, all 50 states do have laws against murder, but suppose some didn't, and murder went uninvestigated, unprosecuted, and unpunished in those states. It would absolutely be the responsibility of the feds to act and pass a nationwide law against murder, at least until all the states remedied their legal codes. Both murder and FGM violate the basic rights of human beings, and the Federal Government does have an interest in, and responsibility to, protect those rights.
 
ashurbanipal said:
The problem is that very few states have adequate laws against FGM. In the absence of state action on this, the Feds have to act. There's absolutely NO excuse for allowing this procedure to be performed in our borders.
Click to expand...

Then they should pass them. I agree there is no excuse for it. states need to do their job and protect it's citizens from this type of abuse.
it is outside the power of the federal government though as it is a state crime not a federal one.

By way of analogy, all 50 states do have laws against murder, but suppose some didn't, and murder went uninvestigated, unprosecuted, and unpunished in those states. It would absolutely be the responsibility of the feds to act and pass a nationwide law against murder, at least until all the states remedied their legal codes. Both murder and FGM violate the basic rights of human beings, and the Federal Government does have an interest in, and responsibility to, protect those rights.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. be a federal issue to pass a nation wide law. that is what got them in trouble to begin with.
the only time that feds get involved with murder cases is in serial cases(by invitation only) or if the murderer crosses state lines.

your opinion while noted is not valid. It is up to the states to enforce law and order within their borders not the federal government.
 
ludin said:
Then they should pass them. I agree there is no excuse for it. states need to do their job and protect it's citizens from this type of abuse.
it is outside the power of the federal government though as it is a state crime not a federal one.



No it wouldn't. be a federal issue to pass a nation wide law. that is what got them in trouble to begin with.
the only time that feds get involved with murder cases is in serial cases(by invitation only) or if the murderer crosses state lines.

your opinion while noted is not valid. It is up to the states to enforce law and order within their borders not the federal government.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately all of that has the consequence that immoral--in the extreme--acts are allowed to continue due to some issue with legalities. I'm afraid I just cannot agree with the view that places law--human, written laws--above what is moral or right. We have the laws that we do, for the most part, because we mean to protect some moral act or deter or defend against some immoral act. We have laws against murder because murder is wrong, and not the other way around. The law being such-and-such a way is simply no excuse for allowing FGM to continue. Yes, the laws must be changed, but in the meantime, whoever can act has the obligation to do so, law be damned.

And so for all such situations. Civil rights activists in the 50s and 60s had to take this attitude, or else Jim Crow would still be a reality and black people in the South wouldn't be able to vote, sit wherever on the bus, eat at whatever restaurants, etc. Moral truth is sometimes difficult to recognize, but in this case, it is not. All who can act, in whatever way, have a moral obligation--an obligation before God, if you want to think of it that way--to act according to a clear moral truth, and not merely whatever the law states.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Unfortunately all of that has the consequence that immoral--in the extreme--acts are allowed to continue due to some issue with legalities. I'm afraid I just cannot agree with the view that places law--human, written laws--above what is moral or right. We have the laws that we do, for the most part, because we mean to protect some moral act or deter or defend against some immoral act. We have laws against murder because murder is wrong, and not the other way around. The law being such-and-such a way is simply no excuse for allowing FGM to continue. Yes, the laws must be changed, but in the meantime, whoever can act has the obligation to do so, law be damned.

And so for all such situations. Civil rights activists in the 50s and 60s had to take this attitude, or else Jim Crow would still be a reality and black people in the South wouldn't be able to vote, sit wherever on the bus, eat at whatever restaurants, etc. Moral truth is sometimes difficult to recognize, but in this case, it is not. All who can act, in whatever way, have a moral obligation--an obligation before God, if you want to think of it that way--to act according to a clear moral truth, and not merely whatever the law states.
Click to expand...

you are arguing apples and oranges.
 
ashurbanipal said:
The problem is that very few states have adequate laws against FGM. In the absence of state action on this, the Feds have to act. There's absolutely NO excuse for allowing this procedure to be performed in our borders.

By way of analogy, all 50 states do have laws against murder, but suppose some didn't, and murder went uninvestigated, unprosecuted, and unpunished in those states. It would absolutely be the responsibility of the feds to act and pass a nationwide law against murder, at least until all the states remedied their legal codes. Both murder and FGM violate the basic rights of human beings, and the Federal Government does have an interest in, and responsibility to, protect those rights.
Click to expand...

That's a bad analogy and a terribly incorrect statement. The state and federal government have different responsiblities (with some overlap) under our system of government. It is not the responsiblity of the federal government to provide laws to backstop the absence of a particular law at the state level.
 
dcsports said:
That's a bad analogy and a terribly incorrect statement. The state and federal government have different responsiblities (with some overlap) under our system of government. It is not the responsiblity of the federal government to provide laws to backstop the absence of a particular law at the state level.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's literally everyone's responsibility, both with respect to the hypothetical example, and the real example it's meant to reflect. Some employees of the Federal Government have a bit more opportunity to fulfill that responsibility than others...
 
ashurbanipal said:
Why not? It's literally everyone's responsibility, both with respect to the hypothetical example, and the real example it's meant to reflect. Some employees of the Federal Government have a bit more opportunity to fulfill that responsibility than others...
Click to expand...

Because of our constitution and form of government. Some powers are delegated to the federal government, while others are reserved to the states. Again, there can be overlap, but in many cases, like this one, it's a state/local issue, and the responsiblity of the state government to decide how to handle it. Remember that in many ways, NOT passing a law is a decision as well. The federal government should not act as a nanny or parent for the state governments. As horrific as the practice is, it's up to the states to address it.
 
dcsports said:
Because of our constitution and form of government. Some powers are delegated to the federal government, while others are reserved to the states. Again, there can be overlap, but in many cases, like this one, it's a state/local issue, and the responsiblity of the state government to decide how to handle it. Remember that in many ways, NOT passing a law is a decision as well. The federal government should not act as a nanny or parent for the state governments. As horrific as the practice is, it's up to the states to address it.
Click to expand...

I refer you to another post I made in this thread...or rather, I will summarize for you so I and you don't have to go hunting for the number: laws are subservient to moral truth. Always have been, always will be. Everyone has a right to resist immoral laws, and conform the law to known moral truth, and to act outside the law when moral truth is at stake.

Simple question: is it morally right, or not, to subject a female child to having her clitoris cut off?

I say the question has a simple answer: Hell. No. It is not morally right.

We have laws because of moral truth. We have laws against murder, for example, because it is immoral to murder human beings. We have laws against theft, against lying in sworn testimony or in certain other situations, against rape, against child abuse, against poisoning the water supply, against welching on a contract, etc. etc. because it is immoral to do those things.

When the laws permit something like FGM, the laws be damned, whoever can act, must act. It is a moral imperative that they do, and moral truth supersedes any and all human laws. Every time in human history a movement of people opposed a law on moral grounds, we have judged them to have acted rightly. The Peasant's Revolt of 1524-5 was in the right, whatever the laws of the realm said at that time. The civil rights activists who broke a great many laws opposing Jim Crow in the South were in the right. The people who ran the underground railroad in the South before emancipation were in the right. Those Germans who concealed and smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany were in the right. The women in England and the United States who broke laws to gain women's suffrage and basic rights for women were in the right. No one now looks back at those events and says "dammit, those people broke the law, they were horrible people." The reason no one does is because everyone who isn't a psychopath knows that moral truth supersedes mere law.

This is a simple case. FGM is morally repugnant. People who object "but the law! the law!" are in the wrong, as they have been every other time throughout history. We must always be on the side of what is moral, when what is moral is known. And in this case, it absolutely is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom